Forum Emperor!
Posts: 1404
(11/21/04 12:03 pm) Reply
Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
UK Reuters
Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual
Fri Nov 19, 5:08 PM ET
By Karolos Grohmann
ATHENS (Reuters) - A group of Greek lawyers are threatening to sue Warner Bros film studios and Oliver Stone, director of the widely anticipated film "Alexander", for suggesting Alexander the Great was bisexual.
The lawyers have already sent an extrajudicial note to the studio and director demanding they include a reference in the title credits saying his movie is a fictional tale and not based on official documents of the life of the Macedonian ruler.
"We are not saying that we are against gays but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, who spearheads the campaign by 25 lawyers, told Reuters on Friday.
Stone was quoted on the MSNBC.com website as telling the upcoming edition of Playboy magazine that the film's depiction of Alexander could offend some.
"We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing," he was quoted as saying.
While the film starring Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie will be released on November 24, Varnakos said he has already gathered enough information regarding the content of the movie to suggest there are "inappropriate references".
"We have not seen the film but from the information we have already there are references to his alleged homosexuality, a fact that is in no historical document or archive on Alexander," he said. "Either they make it clear that this is a work of fiction or we will take the case further."
This is not the first time Greeks have been angered by suggestions Alexander was homosexual and had affairs with young men.
Two years ago hundreds of northern Greeks from the province of Macedonia, where he was born, stormed an archaeological symposium after one speaker presented a paper on the homosexuality of Alexander. Police were called in to evacuate the participants.
One of the greatest military leaders of all time, Alexander, who was never defeated in battle, conquered about 90 percent of the then-known world before his mysterious death at the age of 32, building an empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan.
Varnakaos said as Stone has the right to freely express himself, the audience should have the right to know.
"We cannot come out and say that (former U.S.) President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos said.
------
Movies - Reuters
New 'Alexander' Movie Under Fire for Sexual Portrait
Fri Nov 19, 6:06 PM ET
By Arthur Spiegelman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oliver Stone's new film about Alexander the Great depicts the king as bisexual, fueling outrage from Greeks and prompting Hollywood to ask if a world conqueror with dyed blond hair and waxed legs will be able to attract box office hordes.
One newspaper calls it a case of "Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy." Others have speculated that Stone, always a controversial filmmaker, is taking a big risk with a $160 million epic by including scenes of passionate embrace between Alexander and his best friend Hephaestion.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) says the film breaks new ground for a big budget epic because it shows Hephaestion "as the true love of Alexander's life."
A line from the film says: "Alexander was defeated only once -- by Hephaestion's thighs."
Last summer's blockbuster film "Troy," which could have portrayed Achilles and Patroclus as lovers, brushed aside any homoerotic elements to concentrate on Achilles desire for a Trojan princess.
Everyone associated with "Alexander," from Stone to star Colin Farrell, insist the film, which opens on Wednesday, is historically accurate and reflects the pagan mores of around 330 BC when the Macedonian king captured the world's mightiest empire, Persia, and pressed on to the ends of the Earth.
Farrell, in a recent interview with Reuters, said he had no problem with the role because "Oliver made the film as historically accurate as possible and ambivalent sexuality was something of the times and part of the character."
Stone said he kept the movie accurate and had an historian on the set. He added there was no question that Alexander had "a polymorphous sensuality and was an explorer in the deepest sense of the world."
British scholar Robin Lane (news) Fox, author of a biography of Alexander and historical advisor to the film, said homosexuality and bisexuality were not "issues in ancient times" and that Alexander had extensive relations with women.
But a group of angry Greek lawyers say Stone and the film's distributor Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc. , should be sued for twisting history. The lawyers said they have asked Stone and Warner Bros. to include a reference in the title credits saying the film is fictional. Spokesmen for Warner Bros. and Stone did not have any immediate comment.
"We are not saying that we are against gays, but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, who is spearheading the legal campaign, told Reuters in Athens.
Two years ago, hundreds of Greeks from Alexander's home turf Macedonia, stormed an archeological symposium after one speaker presented a paper on the homosexuality of Alexander.
Stone's film, which he had been trying to get on the screen for 15 years, was filmed mainly in Morocco and Thailand. The Athens News Agency said no scenes were shot in Greece because of government opposition to Stone's portrayal of the Greek hero.
Asked if he toned down scenes, Stone maintained he shot the film the way he wanted. The only overtly sexual scene in the movie is a wedding night love scene between Alexander and his wife Roxanne that starts with her putting a knife to his throat after she catches him accepting a ring from Hephaestion, who is played by Jared Leto wearing eyeliner. Edited by: AAdmin at: 11/21/04 12:45 pm
Forum Emperor!
Posts: 1405
(11/21/04 12:24 pm) Reply
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Not only is this is a historical fabrication done by the shallow and money-hungry hollywood but this is an utmost insult at Greeks and Haimos (yes all of Haimos for the armies of Alexander contained all the Hellenistic Haimians such as Macedonians, Greeks, Epirotes, Thracians and Illyrians) in general.
Greek lawyers say it would be OK to classify this movey as Fiction I say what the HELL are they talking about. Fiction deals with fiction (something fully made up) and it is not dealing with historical events or personalities in a manner that they are altered as some meaningless movie producer feels they should be altered (guided by some obviously biased british 'historian' - as if nordics would have a clue about med behavior for the difference between the two is like night and day).
This film should not be released also since it is an utter fabrication of history and on top of that soldiers also talk with Irish accents (and sure as hell nordics in the movie look or act nothing like Greeks nor have anything in common with them).
There should be a major lawsuit done by Greek lawyers and Oliver Stone should pay every cent he makes with the public apology.
This is nothing short of a pathetic attempt of a character defamation of an imortal name and by whom - some meaningless movie producer that no-one will even know of within 50 years from now.
Hollywood just reached its ultimate low point when it comes to fabricating history. Edited by: AAdmin at: 11/21/04 12:59 pm
Anittas Senior Moderator
Posts: 1061
(11/22/04 7:08 am) Reply
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Aadmin, the idea that Alexander was bisexual is older than Hollywood. I heard the same thing numerous of times.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
All this stuff about ancient balkanians/haimians (ancient greeks in this case)of being gay are nothing more then rescent nordic propaganda (oldest started around 100 years ago) where they are attempting to justify existance of the very high percentage of gay population within their own countries (england has 1/4 of adults identified as gay) and perception was that ancient greeks were nordics therefore same as them. Thi propaganda really took of in the 70's.
The fact is that there was no nordics in ancient greece and ancient greeks were the same as todays Greeks antropologically speaking. Nordics do not reside in any suptropical region except in Australia (even here most are in the collest southern portions of the subcontinent) where they ahve the highest cases of skin canser in the world which explains why they do not reside in other subtropical regions.
The word Lesbian and its origin (meaning as in homosexual female tells us when it was first used as such)
ps: In fact there is no referenced from ancient greek sources that claim anything about gayness of ancient greece in any shape or form. The fact is that to cold, simplistic and sexally insecure nordics two close friends have to be homosexual, an older man can not tutor a young body without expecting sex (this only tells us about nordic behavior patterns). To balkanian morons here considering most are antropologically speaking descendants of ancient haimians by speaking crap about ancient greeks you are in effect talking crap about yourselves (you just do not know it yet) for ancient Haimos/Balkans at that time was fully hellenistic (Illyria, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia, Coastal Dacia and much of Anatolia indcluded.) Barbarians who invaded Haimos very few and primitive and couldnt measure up in numbers to millions of haimians who resided there but were enough to change or alter their languages. Resume your pathetic ignorance.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
The homosexuality in that time was normal and the other nations took that practise from Greeks.
Edited by: bosnjanin at: 11/25/04 10:18 pm
AAdmin Forum Emperor!
Posts: 1521
(11/26/04 4:53 am) Reply
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Some responces on the movie
Quote:The Illyrian review of the Movie:
by ILLYRIA (Login ILLIRIA)
Besides bull**** and disagreements...
I ask anyone of you that hasnt seen the movie to NOT GO and see it. After reading the movie reviews, i was kind of prepared regarding its uglyness. I took my Gf and went to the nearest movie theater to my university.The movie not only sucked,it sucked beyond imagination. Jolie that was playing Olympia not only was trying to immitate the accent of the father in the big fat greek wedding, but she was portrayed as the biggest slut. In any of the dialogues she had with alexander it looked like she was gonne **** her own son. To return to the accent,for ****en gods sake the movie is in english, whats the ****en point trying to immitate a newcomer immigrant to the States.Philip was more brutal than the word itself.
ALexander forget it.Lets not focus on the historical inaccuracies,but the acting resembled a wuss from the Broadway playing one of the Sheakspearean plays being the protagonist faggot.The movie was based on the supposed relationship between Alexander and his friend Hephaestion,in this case his homo buddy.The movie was just terrible.Farrell couldnt be more terrible,,,U dont know where to start and end.What kind of undefeated leader could be such a pu**y, that pu**y itself could get confused. There were alot of things missing in this boring 3 hours epic, but you got to have Ptolemy(Hopkins) narrating in plain tasteless boring tone. There isnt a single thing that i remember to make a good impression to me.
SO please guys Go and watch Another Movie, whatever nationality you are,greek or Fyromacedonian,Bulgarian or albanian gay or straight, from wherever you are standing you will dearly regret it.
I never regreted watching a movie so much in my life and pay 20$ for such a ripp off.They should not get credits for it.They are worthless.I went to see a real hero AS he is, and his achivements proove so.I love this kind of movies.I love Gladiator.But such an amazing story of a real hero, is massacred like this.I tried to forget the story and focus on the movie as a Fiction, but the way they played this movie was massacring of ACTING itself .
Quote:My review of 'Alexander':
by Nika (no login)
Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Boring, tedious, inaccurate, and simply a terrible film.
Alexander is portrayed as a flaming queen and spends more time spouting his 'love' of Hephaistion than fighting battles. The puupy dog looks between Alex and Bagoas made me want to hurl.
Their are only two battles and both have some upside's, but overall, very, very, poorly done. You get no sense of the scope, of the tactics, or of the drama. The battles are quick and the narration glosses many years with many blanks, leaving more screen time to have long soliloquies from Alexander on the 'brotherhood of man' that are just pathetic.
From the nationalist standpoint, a draw. Stone clearly, clearly, hedged his bets. One moment Alexander is a Greek, the next a 'Macedonian'. From Alexander being the 'first Greek to have Persians bow to him' to Philip 'waiting all his life for the Greeks to pay their obedience to him', Stone alternates from one to the other, and my friends were clearly confused.
To top it off, the soundtrack sucks. I personally like Vangelis, but having Alexander charge into battle with some kind of glamorized elevator music was horrific.
The only highlight's of this movie is Jolie's portrayal of Olympias. It is a great performance and the way I have always envisioned her (and she is hot!). Kilmer's Philip is also pretty good. The boorish and drunkard Philip is actually humorous (although a bad mark on this great man's reputation). The other highlight is Roxana's (Rosario Dawsons)breasts.
Alex not bi
Actually Plato's "Symposium" and some other writings from others at the time talk about gay parties (partouzes). I saw a documentary on homosexualism of ancient greece on History Channel and i saw many vaze drawings of men having sex, sometimes an old mentor with a young student.
As far as Alex is concerned, when i was in school in Zografou, Athens, Greece, they taught me he was bisexual.
Quote:Zarathustra
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual
I don't understand why the Greeks should be outraged. He is not greek first of all. If they are honoring him for spreading "greek culture" that's another story... although even on that we're not clear on how the dynamic of the ancient world was like.
Quote: HELLINARAS
The outrage is totally justified, since there are NO historic sources that mention anything of the kind.
About Alexander the Great, Plutarch has this to say:
"When the governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor wrote to Alexander that there was in Ionia a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist, and inquired in his letter whether he should send the boy on to him, Alexander wrote bitterly in reply, "Vilest of men, what deed of this sort have you ever been privy to in my past that now you would flatter me with the offer of such pleasures?"
(On The Fortune of Alexander, 333 a - b.)
Zarathustra
>>He is not greek first of all.<<
Yeah, you're right he was a Slav(e)
(the "e" is intentionall, don't concidered it as a mis-spelling).
The topic isn't about his origin, so I won't take up space on an argument that will only prove he's nothing but Hellinic.
For all you wanna-be ancients (Skopians, Albans or whatever you may be) read:
Source: The National Herald: English Edition
Published: February 24-25, 2001
Here’s a sampler of the text that us meant to guide U.S. Marines about the country’s history:
“The Macedonians are also a people struggling with their past. [They] claim to be the ancestors of the original Macedonians that date back to the 6th century (editor’s note: BC? AD? Who Knows! The manual’s writer does not bother with such details)…Challenges have been made that the Macedonians originate from the Greeks in the south (editor’s note: i.e. the author is not sure whether Alexander was a Greek or a Slav)…It has become increasingly important for the FYROM to claim its history in order to maintain its legitimacy. The Greeks contest the their name… however,, despite the myriad of problems facing them, the Macedonians appear determined to preserve their own culture and peace.”
Somebody should tell the Marine corps that they cannot be so lazy with history and that “impartiality” has its limits. As Americans we cannot corrupt world history and subvert even our own educational system (our high schools still teach that Alexander the Great was a Greek) in order to placate every grouplet that decides to rewrite history in order to gain legitimacy.
The Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA and Canada has already contacted the appropriate authorities in order to correct this monstrosity. I hope the Marine Corps and all the other services heed the organization’s calls to see a correction in the report’s next issue.
And:
IN MY OPINION
By: Stella L. Jatras
11 November 2004
The unwise decision by the State Department to recognize the name change of the Former Republic Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to "The Republic of Macedonia" can only bring further disruption and discord between Greece and the United States. The new name does not differentiate between the Slavic entity of the former Yugoslav republic and the historic, ancient Greek (Hellenic) "Macedonia," the northern region of Greece. Usurping the name of Macedonia without qualifying its ethnic root is not only an insult to the Greek people but, according to the Greek government, is an indication of future territorial claims to portions of Greek Macedonia, claims advanced during the Tito era. We also find out from a White House briefing by Richard Boucher held on 4 November that the hand of Richard Holbrooke and other Clinton holdovers in the State Department is evident in this decision when the following question was asked:
QUESTION: According to a map in my possession, appearing in the U.S. Marine Corps Country Handbook November 2003, under the title "Macedonian Occupation," includes unfortunately the entire Greek Macedonia with a very, very provocative and undiplomatic front-page text against the territorial integrity of Greece. I was told yesterday by a DOD source that this map was drafted during the era of Richard Holbrook when he was Under Secretary for European Affairs in 1999 and it's still valid even today. And it was also verified by Ambassador Nicholas Burns to a group of Greek Americans who [inaudible] to the departure from Athens to Brussels and it was also confirmed to the same group by DOS official -- I have his name -- saying to them specifically, "Nothing has been changed." Any explanation since the text of this language is a diplomatic one and you told us the other day that you, as the Department of State, has had the last word in many diplomatic exchanges?"
As the old _expression goes, "There's something rotten in the state of Denmark," so, there is something very wrong here also. Why, at this time of crisis, would the first act of the State Department after President Bush's re-election be to give this recognition when there are other far more important matters that face this nation? Why would the State Department risk the wrath of Greece and Americans of Greek descent? Frankly, I am at a loss for an answer but I certainly cannot accept, "because it is the right thing" to do, as mouthed by State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher. However, I can accept it was to reward FYR Macedonia for their participation in the Iraqi war, but somehow, that, too, does not seem plausible compared to risking the wrath of an ally.......
The whole article at :
http://www.10452lccc.com/tempo/stella11.11.04.htm
The map mentioned at :
http://athens.indymedia.org/front.p...ticle_id=285783
You can read the entire 4 November 2004 White House briefing by Richard Boucher at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/37819.htm
Learn a little something about Tito's and Stalin's plan, how this is being enforced by US and of course WHY? And then talk about his origin.
Quote: Illyrius
All this stuff about ancient balkanians/haimians (ancient greeks in this case)of being gay are nothing more then rescent nordic propaganda (oldest started around 100 years ago) where they are attempting to justify existance of the very high percentage of gay population within their own countries (england has 1/4 of adults identified as gay) and perception was that ancient greeks were nordics therefore same as them. Thi propaganda really took of in the 70's.
The fact is that there was no nordics in ancient greece and ancient greeks were the same as todays Greeks antropologically speaking. Nordics do not reside in any suptropical region except in Australia (even here most are in the collest southern portions of the subcontinent) where they ahve the highest cases of skin canser in the world which explains why they do not reside in other subtropical regions.
The word Lesbian and its origin (meaning as in homosexual female tells us when it was first used as such)
ps: In fact there is no referenced from ancient greek sources that claim anything about gayness of ancient greece in any shape or form. The fact is that to cold, simplistic and sexally insecure nordics two close friends have to be homosexual, an older man can not tutor a young body without expecting sex (this only tells us about nordic behavior patterns). To balkanian morons here considering most are antropologically speaking descendants of ancient haimians by speaking crap about ancient greeks you are in effect talking crap about yourselves (you just do not know it yet) for ancient Haimos/Balkans at that time was fully hellenistic (Illyria, Thrace, Epirus, Macedonia, Coastal Dacia and much of Anatolia indcluded.) Barbarians who invaded Haimos very few and primitive and couldnt measure up in numbers to millions of haimians who resided there but were enough to change or alter their languages. Resume your pathetic ignorance.[/quote]
Quote: HELLINARAS
Illyrius
Great info.
I'm not sure if the nordics started the theory, from what I know, this homosexual theory was started by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert in the late 19th century. Now if the nordics were behind this or not is beyond me.
There is one thing we can be absolutely sure of.
Of course homosexuality existed in Hellas, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death.
Simple proof of this are the laws against homosexuals.
An example:
Aeschines in his speech Contra Timarchus based his defense on the law which denied any participation in public affairs by homosexuals and pederasts. According to the law of "same-sex companionship" (grafí etairísios), any citizen could bring charges against a person suspected or known to be a sodomite or a pederast.
If one is to read this speech or Plato's Laws he will find more laws against homos.
Robert Flaceliere in his book Love in Ancient Greece (trans. by James Cleugh. Frederick Muller Ltd., London; 1962) :
On page 140 he writes: "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous.
This idiotic theory is based on the word eromenos, but what does it really mean ( modern Hellinic = lover)
Now if some illeterate nobody has mixed up the meaning it had, to what it means now thats a whole different story.
Example :
Kenneth J. Dover Professor Emeritus of Hellinic in the University
of St. Andrews and former President of Corpus Christian College, Oxford
As many other "professors" he also has claimed that such relationships did not replace marriage between man and woman, but occurred before and beside it. A mature man would never have a mature male mate, one notable exception being Alexander the Great !!! (don't you love this?),
but he would be the erastes (lover) to a young eromenos (loved one).
In this relationship it was considered improper for the eromenos to feel desire, as that would not be masculine. Driven by desire and admiration, the erastes would devote himself unselfishly to providing all the education his eromenos required to thrive in society.
>>Please note that these are his/their translation of the words and have nothing to do with reality !!!<<
As most of the self proclaimed researchers/historians he makes the same STUPID mistake.
"eromenos" from "eromai" = to ask, enquire
And "erastes" from "erao"/ "eraomai" = to be in love with, without sexual reference to love warmly/admire
it also gives us "eromene" = the beloved one
A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty "falls" in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.”
So we see that gender just becomes an irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.
Hmm... isn't this exactly what "erastes" means ?
And to top it off I'll post one of AESOP's fables not very well known :
ZEUS gave man all his vitues and his flaws through every hole in his body ,from his ears , mouth ,nostrils and eyes , he left last SHAME ( Aidos )and he tried to put SHAME (AIDOS) through the ass.
SHAME reacted and finally they came to an agreement that if anything else would ever go in the ass after she (shame) did, she would leave that body immediately , thats why gays in ancient Greece were called "kinaidos" that means he who has no shame.
Quote: BibleRiot
For a good discussion of the Against Timarchos and Athenian mores, see here.
Buggery was unacceptable to the Greeks. But it is illiterate to claim that Aeschines was citing laws against homosexual erotic relationships. Timarchos was accused of being a whore in his youth, and of having squandered his patrimony. Aeschines does not call him a kinaidos, (even if he probably once was) but he does level such an accusation at Demosthenes.
You are surely not suggesting that you know more of the meaning of ancient Greek words than Dover, simply because you know the modern idiom? Or that this entire scholarly conception of homosexual relations in classical Greece (and Carthage, incidentally - they were apparently impressed by Thebes Sacred Band) is based on the mistranslation of just one word? I would not venture such an argument against a Greek Professor of English concerning the meanings of words in Chaucer. Hubris, anybody?
Quote: HELLINARAS
>>it is illiterate to claim that Aeschines was citing laws against homosexual erotic relationships.<<
Never did I say nor imply that he was citing any kind of law nor did I say he called him "kunaidos. If you read it again you'll see I said that he "based his defense on the law". Which is proof that homos weren't accepted nor was this behaviour any kind of norm.
>>You are surely not suggesting that you know more of the meaning of ancient Greek words than Dover, simply because you know the modern idiom?<<
What modern idiom are you talking about?
I am suggesting exactly what can be seen posted.
a)There is absolutely NO proof of homosexuality being accepted in Hellas nor it being any kind of norm.
b)This idiotic theory is based on the wrongly translated words "erastes" and "eromenos". True translation also given above.
c)Of course homosexuality did exist in ancient Hellas, just as it has existed, and these sick fucks will continue to exist in every country through history. But from that to implying it was any kind of norm especially since there is more than enough proof, that proves the exact opposite is the least I can say crazy.
As for what I think of these wanna-be historians and self-proclaimed researchers. Just keep in mind that "Robin Lane Fox", the "wanna-be historian" O.Stone consulted for historic data while making the movie in question.
Has admitted in an interview that he was told, that if he was to write in his book Alexander was a homo, his book would sell, I guess its nothing more than a coincidence.
And, please tell me why should Dover or any of these wanna-be's be concidered accurate. Half of them, if not all have absolutely no idea how the words are pronounced. They insist using the "Erasmic or Erasmian pronunciation" and insist that ancient Hellinic is an almost dead language that has no connection to modern, all this simply because it is much easier for a non-Helline to pronounce all binary combinations of letters in erasmic manner.
_________
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom.
Forum Emperor!
Posts: 1545
(12/3/04 5:29 am) Reply
Re: Alex not bisexual
Movies - AP
Bisexual 'Alexander' Irks Some in Greece
By PARIS AYIOMAMITIS, Associated Press Writer
ATHENS, Greece - Alexander the Great, who carved out a vast empire east of Greece before his death at age 32, is idolized in this nation as a symbol of its ancient glory. So when Oliver Stone's new epic about the conqueror's life depicted him as a bisexual who has a fling with his childhood friend Hephaestion, the portrayal hit a raw nerve in a nation where homophobic attitudes remain widespread.
A group of 25 Greek lawyers has threatened to sue the movie's producers over what they describe as a distortion of history — but insist the protest is not aimed at gays.
"I want to stress we have nothing against gays or lesbians. We respect their rights as everybody else's," said Yiannis Varnakos, the head of the lawyers' group.
"We would have reacted the same way if the issue didn't involve homosexuality," he said. "We just don't want a distortion of historical facts."
The lawyers are calling on the filmmakers, Warner Bros., to carry a disclaimer that the movie is a fictional portrayal of Alexander's life.
On Tuesday, they withdrew a request to delay the movie's release in Greece, agreeing to suspend the action until they watch a preview screening of "Alexander" before it opens in Greece on Dec. 3.
Gay rights campaigners have condemned the lawyers' campaign, contending it is a clear case of homophobia disguised as a quest for historical truth.
"When it comes to these sorts of matters, Greece is stuck in the middle ages," said Athanasios Vessis, manager of the only gay book store in Greece.
"Everyone knows homosexuality was something natural in ancient Greece," he said. "I don't see the reason for all the fuss."
A quiet effort underway in Greece to bring gay issues into open debate is being met with increased public hostility. Vessis cited recent remarks by Greece's church leader who branded homosexuality a sin as an example of creeping anti-gay sentiment in the country.
Last month, talk shows were dominated by an argument about whether or not to kick a gay participant off a reality TV show. The debate centered mostly around his homosexuality.
In Stone's 173-minute film, Alexander has an intimate relationship with childhood friend and cavalry commander Hephaestion.
Historians say ancient Greek men often had sexual partners of either gender and many argue Alexander was no exception.
Stone's consultant on the movie, British historian Robert Lane Fox, wrote in his 1973 book, Alexander the Great: "Alexander was only defeated once, the Cynic philosophers said long after his death, and that was by Hephaestion's thighs."
Varnakos challenged Fox to explain his conclusions, since none of the sources of Alexander's contemporaries survive. Suggestions that Alexander had male lovers, he said, are based on accounts given more than 300 years after his death.
"There is absolutely nothing in the sources that supports the idea that Alexander was bisexual," Varnakos said.
"I can't just claim that JFK was a basketball player for the Los Angeles Lakers ... so likewise Stone cannot say Alexander was gay."
_________
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
What are you outraged from? Alexander is not even greek, or is this just another way of making yours something that is not ? Nietzsche wrote countless books about greek culture, but he is not greek. Although i have to say that if poor Nietzsche lived another time his name would have changed to something else probably...
here's the story of alexander for those who want to learn the truth.
------------------------------------------
[Broward Metro Edition]
James Wm. Pandeli Fort Lauderdale. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Nov 30, 2004. pg. 20.A
In Greece in the early 1800s, Lord Byron witnessed the Albanian families fighting for Greek independence, and the first president of Greece was George Kondouriti of Hydra, an Albanian. In Egypt, Mohammed Ali, who made himself king in the early 1800s, was of obscure Albanian origin. The first prime minister of Italy, Fancesco Crespi, was an Albanian.
It is not surprising that filmmakers or even historians cannot capture the whole picture of Alexander the Great.
First of all, his mother was from an Illyrian (Albanian) tribe. The original name of Macedonia was "Emathia," which in Albanian means "the great land," hence the appellation Alexander the Great. (The same was true with Constantine the Great and Justinian the Great, all from the general area of Macedonia. Sometimes the area was more inclusive during the Roman times).
To capture Alexander the Great as a soldier, one need only look to the successive generations of Illyrians to witness their exploits. The Albanians literally took over the Ottoman Empire with the Kuprili family -- of obscure origin from Albania.
In Greece in the early 1800s, Lord Byron witnessed the Albanian families fighting for Greek independence, and the first president of Greece was George Kondouriti of Hydra, an Albanian. In Egypt, Mohammed Ali, who made himself king in the early 1800s, was of obscure Albanian origin. The first prime minister of Italy, Fancesco Crespi, was an Albanian.
It would be difficult to change the understanding of Alexander the Great as a Greek, but it is fiction and not fact. The truth would be told if one would understand what Alexander the Great was by ethnic birth -- an Illyrian (Albanian) -- and the research exposed the characteristics of the ethnic Albanians throughout the centuries.
It would be a remarkable accomplishment to put to film and book alike in a more truthful light. Audiences would really come to know the fact and not the fiction.
==================================
The Future of the Albanian State
The Geographical Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jul 191 , 12-17
The Royal geographical Society(with the Institute of British Geographers)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Albanians, or Shkipetar as they are proud to call themselves, are descendants of the original inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula, who, like our own Britons driven before successive incursions from the East, have taken refuge among the mountain fastnesses of the West. Here they have succeeded through the centuries in maintaining their ancient language, their national customs, their virtual independence. No people in Europe have proved themselves more resistant to efforts of assimilation; and if in many ways they are still barbarians, it is because they have suffered the double disadvantage of forming part of a corrupt and stagnant Empire, cut off during the past five hundred years from all contact with progressive Europe; and of having lived in a constant state of instability and insecurity on the very fringe of that Empire, which, though strong enough to encompass them, was nevertheless not strong enough to subdue them. Now there is every reason to suppose that, secure in the possession of its own land, the race which gave birth to Pyrrhus and Alexander, to Skanderbeg and Lek Ducaghin; which in more modern times has furnished Turkey and even Greece * and Italy** with eminent statesmen, sailors, and soldiers; and which has justly earned a reputation for courage, industry, and integrity, will before long amply justify its title to recognition and autonomy."
FOOTNOTES:
* Admiral Miaulis and many other heroes in the struggle for Greek Independence were either Albanians or of Albanian extraction.
** The famous Italian statesman, Crispi, was of Albanian extraction.
I 'Albania,' by Wadham Peacock, formerly H.B.M. Charge d'affairs in Montenegro and Consul-General in North Albania (1914).
===================================
Read Tarn's biography about him, and what Edith Durham writes about him. In the north of Albania there are still songs that people sing about him, just as in the south there are still songs that greeks sing to Ali Pashe Tepelena, with the difference that we sing to Albanians, and greeks sing to someone that is not greek.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
“The first giant leap of faith,” says Borman, “was to say, ‘This is a huge budget.’ And the second one was [choosing] this actor who’s great but who’s not Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt or one of the established big $20 million players. Oliver told me, ‘You have to meet this guy.’ We sat down and talked and after that lunch, I said, ‘I can see this is our Alexander. Now let me figure out how we can finance that.’ ”
Borman says his belief in Alexander’s story was fueled by his own memories of what he’d been like at the age when Alexander marched off. “I wanted to take my backpack and go the Himalayans, to go down to Africa. I wanted to see all of that.”
Although Borman sought to assure Warners that none of the male-on-male sexuality was rougher than what they’d probably seen on television’s Will & Grace, there was abiding concern (Cynic philosophers said well after Alexander’s death that “he was defeated only once, and that was by the thighs of Hephaistion,” played by Jared Leto). Such worries prompt Stone to wax indignant about the contrast between the Greeks, who practiced bisexuality matter-of-factly, and later cultures. “Why suddenly did it become an issue?” he says. “Who were the Puritans who raised their broomsticks in the air? Listen, we’re honest about sexuality and try to show it without offending people. It’s not done with the intention of arousing the lechers, it’s done with the intention of arousing your heart.”
Actor Connor Paolo, then 13, plays the young Alexander at mother Olympias's side (Angelina Jolie, center) as he rises to ride the untamed horse Bucephalus.
When Warners stepped up, the rest of the casting was on in earnest. The Olympias role was pivotal, and Stone, who knew Jolie well from helping develop Beyond Borders, turned to her. The decision came down to a Manhattan meet-up with Farrell. “At dinner the first night, it was funny,” Stone recalls. “He was all over her, he was like the Irish boy—he wasn’t Alexander, and he was just falling in love with her, couldn’t help himself. I was thinking, ‘It’s the right choice, because he’s behaving like a baby.’ And she was laughing at him, it was very funny, she was—older. I don’t know if actors sometimes act out their desires and he wanted to be the infant to her mother . . . It works.”
Jolie would begin by playing closer to her own age of 28 in a scene with the young Alexander. She laughs at how Stone threw her in the deep end: “Yeah, my first day, with a six-year-old child doing his first film, I’m singing a lullaby—and I don’t sing—with an ALBANIAN accent and handling a bunch of snakes. Oliver just pushes you to do things—and then you get through it.”
Jolie has a fairly regal smile when asked about the tabloid reports that she was more than acting partner to Farrell. One can’t help but be charmed by him, she admits. “But he’s an amazing actor, too, and—as much as he’s wild, wonderful and playful and interesting—he’s professional. And we came on set very much our characters.”
She’s well aware of the ironies of having four of Hollywood’s bad kids—Stone, Farrell, Kilmer, and herself—on one set portraying ancient times. “The thought of us doing a period film sounds weird,” she says. “We all joked, ‘What are they going to say that we haven’t heard a thousand times?’ They can’t tear us apart, they can’t break us down—we’ve all been the most publicly criticized group and been through the wringer in so many ways that we could give each other the strength to say ‘They’re going to criticize us anyway, let’s do it true to what we believe it should be.’ ”
Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy, who ruled Egypt after Alexander's legions conquered it, is seen in the Great Library at Alexandria; his narration underscores the plot's events.
Anthony Hopkins, who plays Ptolemy, got an Oscar nomination for playing Nixon for Stone in 1995, and they have a robust, taunting friendship. He was able to do all of his work in just a few days of shooting, with Stone dogging him all the way. “He’s a wicked man. He’d come on set and say to me, ‘Are you going to make it? Because, God, you look so old,’ ” Hopkins says.
“I like to talk to the crew and people, and he says, ‘Why the hell are you being so friendly to everyone? You should be in character. Do you think you’re President of the United States, shaking hands? Gimme a @#%$ break!’ And I go, ‘Oh, **** off, Oliver.’ But he’s a great actor because you think he’s really pissed off.
“I want to stress how much I really admire Oliver,” adds Hopkins. “I know he’s pleased with Colin--a wonderful young actor. Oliver said to me when I arrived, ‘Do you know Colin? He hasn’t slept in six years.’ ”
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Interesting Iranian Professor's view on the Alexander movie
-----
Dr. Kaveh Farrokh-The Alexander Movie: How are Iranians and Greeks
portrayed?
From: Kaveh Farrokh
manuvera@aol.com
Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004 2:07 PM
Hollywood has just released one of the latest of its epic blockbusters: Alexander the Great. Directed by distinguished director Oliver Stone, the movie endeavours to recreate the events of the Hellenic conquests and the downfall of the first Persian Achaemenid Empire. It is important to note however, that simply because a movie is high budget, casts high profile Hollywood actors and is directed by top ranking directors, does not make it flawless.
Beyond the entertainment value of Oliver Stone's latest project, a number of serious errors do exist in the movie, many which may appear trivial. These "trivial" errors will nevertheless be of consequence to both Iranians and Greeks.
Ironically, it has been my Greek friends and colleagues who bought the flaws of Oliver Stone's "Alexander" picture to my attention. There are a total of five overall errors that will be listed and discussed below:
(1) The Battle of Gaugamela:
Oliver Stone has relied on Professor Robin Lane Fox, one of the world's foremost experts in the area of Alexander and Hellenic Studies. His book is a standard reference text in the area of Alexandrian Studies:
R.L. Fox. Alexander the Great. London: Penguin, 1986 and 1994.
ISBN: 0140088784
Despite excellent reviews of his book by critics and scholars, Dr. Fox does not understand the military of ancient Persia. A typographical shot of the battle of Gaugamela, shows the Greeks advancing in ordered and disciplined ranks. In contrast, the armies of Darius III are shown as little better than an amorphous mob. This is a false image of the Achaemenid army. The Achaemenids used drums and musical instruments to direct the marching tactics of their troops in battle. Second, the Achaemeneans used the decimal system, which was in fact, unknown to the Greeks of the period. Persian units were formed in legions of 10, 100 or 1000 or 10,000. A typical term was "Hezar-Patesh" (roughly equivalent to "leader of a thousand men").
In addition, the Persians had developed a sophisticated system of heraldry and their troops wore standard uniforms. The Greeks were certainly excellent fighters and were thoroughly organized, but this
does not mean that the Persians were not. At the time, the Greeks were militarily superior with respect to armaments, tactics and military training.
This military imbalance changed with the coming of the Parthian and Sassanian cavalry. The Iranian Savaran (elite Cavalry) successfully halted and defeated many of the later Greek-Hoplite inspired Roman
armies. Many Romans attempted to imitate Alexander and failed against Persia. These include Marcus Lucinius Crassus at Carrhae, Marc Antony at Tabriz (where he failed twice), Gordian III at Mesiche, Phillip
the Arab near modern Syria, Valerian at Barbablissos, and Julian the Apostate in Mesopotamia. I personally doubt that Hollywood will recreate these spectacular Roman defeats as these will challenge
contemporary western notions of the Alexandrian legacy. In addition, many Iranians today are unaware of the proud legacy of the Parthian and Sassanian Savaran.
Professor Fox's elementary grasp of Iranian militaria should not inspire much confidence with respect to accurate portrayals of Iranians in general. You may wish to read the following books by Professors Sekunda and Head who are experts on the uniforms, dress and equipment of the ancient Greeks and Achaemenid Persians.
D. Head. The Achaemenid Persian Army. England: Montvert Publications,
1992.
ISBN: 1874101000
There are many errors with the uniforms portrayed as "Persian". As you will see in these books, the colors and materials of Achaemenid Persians were invariably bright with a mix of shades of purple,
Saffron, red dyes, shades of blue and green, mixed with darker browns (almost Burgundy) and black. These fashions and regalia were resuscitated during the Sassanian dynasty (226-651 AD). Only the
Persian archers (and a few guards) are shown with some accuracy; the same cannot be said with respect to the other "Persians" of the movie set.
More puzzling is the "Arabesque" way in which ancient Persians are portrayed in this battle. I was shocked to see Arabian camel riders used to portray one of the vanguards of Darius III's attack on
Alexander at the battle scene. Arabs were simply auxiliary units in the Achaemenean army at the time, and were not a major factor. Camel troops were never a major battle order in the armies of Persia. I
also noticed that an infantry troop of the Achaemenid advance guard was speaking in Arabic. Persian is not related to Arabic; it is an Indo-European language akin to the languages of Europe and India.
This may be the usual Hollywood habit however of portraying Iranians as Arabs, a topic we will re-visit later in this commentary.
(2) Confusing Persia with Babylon
It is very interesting that Professor Fox does not refer to the Achaemenid capitals in Susa, Maracanda (Samarqand), Media or Persopolis. The destruction of Persopolis by Alexander is a major event - instead the movie shows Alexander entering the city of Babylon, implying that this was the administrative capital of Persia. Babylon was simply another satrapy of the empire; not its capital. Babylon had already been incorporated into the Persian Empire in 539 BC by Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC). Why is Persopolis and its destruction not mentioned? There was also the destruction of the three major Zoroastrian texts by Alexander - also not referred to in the movie.
A possible reason for this may be found in Professor Fox's.interview with the distinguished journal "Archeology Today" (Riding with Alexander) (enter link below into your internet browser):
Note the statement below, and how indicative it is of Professor Fox's lack of understanding of Classical Achaemenid Persia:
"We all understood that the separate "parts" of Oliver's drama must be "color-coded" and … which could not totally depart from audiences' expectations of Greek or Babylonian imagery"
Note the statement "Greek or Babylonian imagery". This statement implies that Persia had no real arts worth mentioning, and that Persia is simply an extension of Babylon or at best interchangeable.
As noted previously, Babylon was not a major power at the time of Alexander. Persian arts and architecture were an eclectic synthesis of indigenous (e.g Median, Elamite), Lydian, and Mesopotamian styles, including Babylonian. The city-palace of Persopolis is very distinct and cannot be crudely termed as Babylonian. It is, to put it mildly, shocking, that the treatment of Persian studies is addressed at such
a shallow level by Professor Fox.
An important point must be made, especially with respect to the reason why Alexander was so violent in his conquest of Persia. The Greeks were simply taking revenge for the earlier invasion of their country by Darius the Great and his son Xerxes. The Greeks paid a heavy price for their battles at Marathon (490 BC), Thermopylae (17th September, 490 BC), Athens (27th September, 490 BC), Salamis (29th September, 490 BC), and Plataea (479 BC). It is significant that when Xerxes burned Athens, he ordered the sacred statues of the Greek gods to be removed and brought to Persia. The Greeks revered their gods and this Persian act was a national insult to them. Most contemporary Iranians are not aware of these facts. This certainly is not an excuse for what happened at Alexander's time, but it does help put
these events in perspective.
Although many Iranians demonize Alexander, the man did come to develop a great deal of respect for Persia. The more Alexander stayed in Persia, the more "Persian" he became, in manners and in dress.
Alexander paid his respects at the tomb of Cyrus the Great and indeed saw himself as the heir of Cyrus. The Greeks so admired Cyrus the Great, that they saw his manner of government as a model. You may
wish to read the Greek "Cyropedia". If Aristotle made racist statements about the Persians (and this is shown in the movie), it must also be made clear that many Greeks also praised the Persians (see Xenophon or Plutarch in his discussion of the Parthian general Surena). A very positive aspect of the Alexander movie is that Alexander praises the "east" for its architecture and civilization. It is possible that Alexander was poisoned by some of his officers for becoming too "Persian".
(3) The Blondism of Alexander
A very serious concern of the Alexander movie is the promotion of the idea of the "Nordicism" of ancient Greece. Put simply, this is the thesis that ancient Greeks were not only predominantly blonde, but "Nordic", in the manner of present-day Scandinavians and Northern Germans. Nordicists have long argued, since the late 1700s, that the people of ancient and modern Greece are unrelated. Nordicism argues that the "ancient" Greeks were the "true" Greeks in contrast to the non-Nordic people of Greece today. This view is exemplified by the Austrian Hellenicist, Professor Fallmerayer, in the 1830s, who noted that "not a drop of pure Greek blood runs in the veins of modern Greeks…" To this day, Fallmerayer is recalled with bitterness and derision in Greece. It is worth noting that Fallmerayer never set foot in Greece in his entire lifetime. For further discussion on these issues you may wish to read:
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's "Guide to Peoples of Europe", especially
pages 207-216.
Published in London by Times Books in 1994.
ISBN: 0-7320-0624-5
Fallmerayer's analysis of Greece is not entirely correct. While true that the Ottoman Turks ruled Greece for 400 years and that previous Byzantine rulers (e.g. Emperor Nikopherous) had to import colonists
from present day south Italy to help repopulate parts of Greece ravaged by wars, many of these "Italian" colonists were themselves ancient Greek, settled in regions such as Calabria and Southern
France since the times of Darius the Great and earlier. In any event, there has always been a strong and predominant Greek element in areas such as the Peloponnesos.
As for the lack of mainstream Nordiscism in modern Greece, this has to do with the history of ancient Greece itself. Mainland Greece was already settled with indigenous Mediterranean peoples, such as the
ancient Minoans, before the arrival of the Classical Greeks. Ancient Greece, like today, was a mixture of Mediterranean and "blonde" peoples.
This leads to a very crucial question: why have no Greek actors been selected to portray classical Greeks such as Alexander, Hephaestion, Ptolemy I, Olympias, King Phillip II, Cassander or Antiginous? For a review of the cast, click on the following links (enter links below into your internet browser):
If one were to use Classical Greek works of art (vases and statues specifically) as a standard for prototypical Greek physical appearance, one can then easily find a plethora of modern Greek actors and actresses today who can portray ancient Greeks. It is interesting as to why Oliver Stone did not select Hollywood actors of Greek descent or from mainland Greece.
Oliver Stone goes further however. Colin Farrell, a dark haired Irish actor, who plays Alexander, is portrayed literally, as a bleached blonde. The notion of Alexander being Flaxen-haired or blonde is
itself a matter of considerable doubt if not strong dispute. As noted by my friend George Tsonis, a Greek-Canadian and a scholar of Greek, Roman and Persian history, the Greek word for Alexander's complexion is "Xanthenein" (fair). This description simply marks Alexander's complexion as being fairer than the other Greeks of his time. Yes, he was relatively fair, but not necessarily flaxen-blonde in the
Nordicist sense. From the Tufts University Lexicon "Xanthenein" is roughly translated as fair or a yellowish-brown color. A related term, "Xanthizo", can also be to "make yellow" or "brown". No wonder
there is confusion!
Plutarch, whom most western scholars rely on for their references, does not actually describe Alexander's hair color, only his complexion. This is a quote from Aelian on the hair; below is the
Anglisized Greek from Cyrillic and the English translation below that:
"Alexandron de ton Filippou apragmonos oraion legousi genesthai' tin men gar komin anasesyrthai afto, xanthin de einai'"
"Alexander the son of Philip is reported to have possessed a natural beauty: his hair was wavy and fair"
Varia Historae, 12.14
To see the debates raging about Alexander's true appearance see the following discussion panel (enter link below into your internet
browser):
A very non-Nordic portrayal of Alexander is evident in the Pompei Mosaic. It is agreed by a majority of scholars that the painting is a faithful rendition of an original Hellenistic painting of the 3rd century BC. As you will witness in the painting below, this Hellenic-Roman version of Alexander is very different from the contemporary Hollywood fantasy interpretation (see photo below):
As you see in the photo, this is a very different Alexander than what many western scholars and Hollywood would have us believe.
This painting appears to refutes the notion of Alexander being blonde. Nevertheless, a number of western scholars remain determined to push forward an image of Alexander that may be false. There are scholars who are actually convinced that the Pompei mosaic is proof of Alexander's Nordic blondeness! Even in allowing for poor reproductions, the mosaic clearly shows a 'brown' haired person with a Mediterranean or modern Iranian profile. Many Greek and Iranian people today have auburn-brown hair, which can appear to be somewhat "blonde" in sunlight.
The point from the Greek perspective however, is not simply whether Alexander was blonde or not. After all, the Dorian Greeks were blonde as a rule, just as the original Persians and Mede settlers of ancient Iran were as well. The issue is that of using the notion of blondeness to project a specifically non-Greek Nordic west European image. Irrespective of whether Alexander was blonde or not, he represented the culture of ancient Greece, which is not necessarily the same as that of modern Western Europe.
Ancient Greece and Rome, as we will note again further below, were Mediterranean empires, very different from the inhabitants of interior and northern Europe. The peoples of western and eastern Europe were very different from the Classical Greeks in culture, language and temperament. To obtain an introduction to the history of the northern Europeans, you may wish to read:
D. Rankin. Celts and the Classical World. London: Routledge, 1996.
ISBN: 0-415-15090-6
A. Ferrill. The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation.
Thames & Hudson, 1986.
ISBN: 0500274959
The "Europeans" adopted a great deal of their civilization and identity from the Greeks and the Romans. Even the name "Europe" is derived from the ancient Greek term "Oropia". It may not be an exaggeration to state the following: with their adoption of Greco-Roman culture, west European scholars in particular, have essentially affected a "Nordic makeover" of the ancient Greeks and Romans. As Western culture has adopted the mantle of ancient Greece, it has also adopted Alexander as its own son; to the point that Alexander and ancient Greece are viewed as identical with ancient Western Europe and Scandinavia.
The Nordicising of favourite historical figures does not end with Alexander. Jesus Christ, is frequently portrayed as a slightly built, tall blonde Nordic man. Jesus or Jeshua, was a Jew from West Asia who spoke Aramaic. It is now acknowledged by a number of researchers that much of what we accept as the "appearance" of Jesus is not altogether accurate. Jesus would most likely have resembled a modern Fertile Crescent Arab or Jew from places such as Jerusalem, Amman, Hebron, Damascus or Basra. Scientists have recently reconstructed the image of Christ as he would have most likely appeared in his lifetime in ancient Palestine and Judea (see photo below):
The reconstruction that you witnessed in the attachment is very different from the icons we are used to seeing in the churches and Christian arts of Northwestern Europe. How many images have you seen in North American or Western European churches that show the Aramaic Christ? It would seen that, like Alexander, the "real image" of Jesus has shifted in accordance with politics, ideology, dogma and popular culture over the centuries. Interestingly, many cultures across the world today interpret Jesus' physical appearance in accordance with their own anthropomorphic image (enter link below into your internet browser):
It appears that Hollywood has successfully associated a certain physical appearance with modernity, progress, success and rationalism. By implication, that which is not of that "certain look" is in danger of being associated with all that is the antithesis of that. With this logic, historical reality is bent to fit a manufactured reality: a fantasy.
(4) Greek or Macedonian?
This movie contains a number of concerns to Greeks in particular, such as Macedonia being "different" from the rest of Greece, a very contested issue in the Balkans these days. Although not generally reported, the government of Greece, which had originally supported the Alexander picture, withdrew its funding and support for Oliver Stone's project (enter link below into your internet browser):
There was to have been co-operation between Stone and the Greek government, but this was apparently changed when the details of the script became known (see also (4) below).
To be honest, I was left confused as to whether the Macedonians were Greek or not. This may be an attempt to placate those who view Macedonia as "different" from Greece, not unlike those who try to argue that Kurds and Azerbaijanis are not Iranians. The Greeks, like the Iranians today, are now confronted with having to defend their historical heritage against those who have territorial claims against their nation. The Oliver Stone picture, in my opinion, does not clearly define Macedonians as Greeks.
In addition to these concerns, many Greeks are offended by the bisexual portrayal of Alexander. It is also rumoured that many Greek associations may have plans to sue Oliver Stone.
Again, ancient Greek terminology and its translations by western scholars may have played a role in the "bisexual" interpretation of Alexander. We have already seen how the term "Xanthenein" has been stretched to paint a "Scandinavian" Alexander.
(5) The Portrayal of Roxanna and the Perpetuation of the "Hollywood
Persian"
My wife Parnian and I, as Iranians, found the portrayal of Roxanna insulting. This portrayal has been defined by the aforementioned Professor Fox, whose has already been noted for his shallow understanding of Persian arts and architecture. Professor Fox's portrayal of Roxanna also indicates that he has very little knowledge of Iran's anthropological history.
The portrayal of ancient Iranians is outright comical, if not insulting. The inaccurate Hollywood portrayal of Iranians is exemplified by the selection of Rosario Dawson ( www.lostfocus.de/archives...dawson.jpg ), a very talented, beautiful and intelligent black actress, to star as Roxanna, an ancient Iranian queen from Soghdia-Bactria. Roxanna was not black, anymore than Alexander was Scandinavian. Having Rosario Dawson portrayed as Roxanna makes as much sense as having Lucy Liu, an Asian-American, portraying Queen Victoria of Great Britain.
The term Roxanna is derived from Old Iranian "Rokh-shwan" or "face (Ruksh) - fair skinned-shiny (shwan)". Roxanna was related to a North Iranian tribe known later as the Sarmatians, the remnants who survive in the Caucasus and Russia as the Ossetians (ancient Alans or Ard-Alans)
Roman sources such as Pliny repeatedly describe ancient North Iranian peoples such as the Alans and Seres as "…flaxen (blonde) haired blue eyed nomads…" (see Wilcox, p.19). Rosario Dawson does not fit the description of an ancient Iranian woman, especially from Northern Iranian stock. The Ossetians of today, descendants of ancient Northern Iranians, predominantly resemble northern Iranians and Europeans and speak an archaic Iranian language (like the Avesta of the Zoroastrians). Blondism is very common among these descendants of ancient North Iranians in cities such as Beslan and Vladikafkaz. It can be argued that Roxanna was a brunette, however, she was of Northern Iranian stock, which would still make her very different from actress Rosario Dawson.
There are plenty of talented actresses of Iranian descent in North America alone that would well fit the historical Roxanna. Oliver Stone could have just as easily selected an Iranian actress, however he relied on the historical "expertise" of Professor Fox. The question that can be addressed to Professor Fox is this: what makes Rosario Dawson so representative of Iranian women and Roxanna in particular? Is the Professor aware of the anthropology and history of ancient Iran as it was at 333 BC?
More puzzling is the design of Roxanna's costume in the movie. Note the photo showing the marriage of Alexander to Roxanna. Roxanna appears to wear a Burka-like veil constructed of strips of metallic mesh in which the face is partly hidden. See the photo (enter link below into your internet browser):
The headgear is partly correct if we base the costume on the Saka Paradraya Iranian speaking tribes of the present-day Ukraine (8-4th centuries BC). The decorations on the headgear are simply wrong and Iranian queens did not wear face masks of any type. For a discussion of the Saka Paradrya, known in the west as Scythians, consult:
E.V. Cernenko. The Scythians 700-300 BC. London: OspreyPublishing,
1989.
ISBN: 0850454786
See colour plate G.
Once you have consulted Professor's Cernenko's book, it will be evident how flawed the costume design is, not to mention the colors. None of the reconstructions by Professor Gorelik, which Cernenko has consulted, show any type of face masks for ancient Iranian women. Ancient Iranian women, who were found in military, religious and political leadership roles, simply did not wear such attire during courtship, marriage or everyday duties.
It is not clear why Professor Fox has chosen a Burka-like face mask for Roxanna at Alexander's wedding. Variants of this face mask are present in Afghanistan today, mainly the result of former Taliban rule and very conservative Pashtoon tribal society, which very strongly identifies itself with the culture of ancient Arabia.
Even more interesting is the "Arabian Nights" portrayal of an Achaemenid harem. Harems certainly existed in Persia and the later Roman and Byzantine courts, however the specifically "Arabian" appearance accdored to the Achaemenids is simply consistent with the Hollywood tradition of portraying Iranians as Arabs.
Interestingly, the movie portrays the "Persians" with Arabian styles of music and dance. This portrayal is not based on factual information; it is a Hollywood portrayal. From the scant evidence that exists, we do know that one of the Persian styles of dance strongly resembled the dances of the Kurds of today; a style also seen in western Turkey, Greece and the Balkans today. As for music, we have no notes or scales from that period, and "Arab music" as we know it today simply did not exist at that time; it is a much later creation. Arabian music can trace its beginnings to the Bedouin tribes of Arabia - it later borrowing heavily of Sassanian and Greek scales (after the 7th century AD).
These errors are enough to question the historical accuracy of the Alexander picture. It seems that when it comes to Iranians and their identity, history is easily "re-written" for the benefit of popular entertainment. As Professor Fox has duly noted in an interview with Archeology Today (www.archaeology.org/onlin...fox.html), the movie "could not totally depart from audiences' expectations". The "audience" undoubtedly has "expectations" as to what Iranians "should" look like.
Given Professor Fox's rudimentary knowledge of Persia's anthropology, you may wish to refer to:
J.P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archeology
and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson, 1989.
ISBN: 0-500-27616-1
Read pages: 9-23, 48-56, 78, 266-272.
For color reconstructions of ancient Iranians see:
P. Wilcox. Rome's Enemies (3): Parthians and Sassanid Persians.
London: OspreyPublishing, 1986.
ISBN: 0850456886
T. Newark. The Barbarians. London: Concord Publications Company,
1998.
ISBN: 9623616341
See Page 7 (the Saka - ancestors of today's Lurs and Seistanis) and
30 (ancestors of the Ard-Alan).
Iran today is very much a genetic tapestry that includes blondism in Northern and Western Iran (e.g. Parsabad, or Talysh), as well as among Iranian peoples such as Lurs, Azeris, Mazandaranis, Kurds and Boyer-Ahmadis. Iran is also home to Arabians in Khuzistan and the Persian Gulf coast, Asiatic Turcomens in the Northeast, as well as the Baluchis near Pakistan, who have a strong Dravidian admixture. You may wish to read the very thorough and precise compendium of Iranian peoples today by:
F. Hole (Editor). The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and
Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Smithsonian Series
in Archaeological Inquiry). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1987.
ISBN: 0874745268
W. B. Fisher (Editor). The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 1, The
Land of Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
ISBN: 0521069351
These books (especially the Cambridge History of Iran series) will provide a more informed and less misleading analysis of Iran's anthropological history than that offered by Professor Fox.
As seen in this commentary, Hollywood portrayals of Iranians are in stark contrast to reality. Until the Arabian arrivals in the 7th century AD, the majority of Iranians would have looked no different from the Greeks or Romans. Greek and Roman references to classical Iranians do not refer to them as different in the "physical" sense; differences lay mainly in manner of government, philosophy and to a lesser extent, mythology. The Azadan nobility of the Parthian and Sassanian Savaran (elite cavalry), more than 500 years later than Alexander, are described by Peter Wilcox as "…very similar to the Celts…strikingly similar to Northwest Europeans…" (p.6). There are still many short stories in Southern Italy today which accurately portray the temperament and appearance of the Persians as they would have appeared in antiquity.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Despite the powerful historical revisionism of a number of mainly northwest European historians such as Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) or the aforementioned Fallmerayer, the Greco-Roman world and Persia have profoundly influenced each other in areas such as architecture, the arts and crafts, the sciences and medicine, mythology, military and engineering technologies. While true that one can find a number of anti-Persian references in Greco-Roman sources, these were in the context of wars that broke out between these powers. A perfect example of this is how the movie explicitly shows Aristotle deriding the Persians as inferior to the Greeks. Modern Greeks place this in context and see Aristotle as expressing the political climate of his day. Iranians are very well liked and respected in Greece and are seen as the heirs of a great civilization. Alexander himself came to greatly appreciate the Iranians and their culture. It is a shame that the movie did not show Alexander as paying homage to the tomb of Cyrus the Great.
As noted previously, Greco-Roman historians who were prepared to acknowledge and highly praise the Persians (e.g. Xenophon, Plutarch, etc.). Today's popular culture, education systems and movie entertainment industries in particular, seem to be providing a very selective and distorted view of Persia with respect to antiquity. Many are simply not aware (or wish not be aware) of Persia's importance and status in antiquity let alone her major contributions to world civilization.
Ancient Greeks, Romans and Persians had much more in common with each other than with the relatively unsophisticated Celtic and Germanic peoples who were roaming the Northern European forests. For an incisive discussion of these little discussed topics consult:
N. Spatari. Calabria, L'enigma Delle Arti Asittite: Nella Calabria
Ultramediterranea. Italy: MUSABA, 2003.
ISBN: 8887935300
As far as I know, this book has still not be translated from Italian to English. Still an excellent read, especially with the illustrations.
P. Kriwaczek. In Search of Zarathustra: The First prophet and the
Ideas that Changed the World. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002.
ISBN: 0297646222
I look forward to the day when we will see blockbuster movies of Shapur I (241-272) who defeated three Roman emperors in his lifetime and destroyed a third of Rome's armies. Even more dramatic would be to see movies made of the life and times of figures such as Zarathustra, Aryaman, Shahrbaraz, Mani, Mazdak, Babak, Abu Ali Sina or Omar Khayyam.
Forum Emperor!
Posts: 1576
(12/9/04 6:53 pm) Reply
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!Greeks happy with Oliver Stone's "Alexander"
Sat Dec 4, 1:56 PM ET
ATHENS (AFP) - Mainstream Greek audiences and film critics have welcomed Oliver Stone's film "Alexander", relieved that it did not depict the nation's most revered hero as gay, blood-thirsty and non-Greek, as they feared.
Sat Dec 4, 1:56 PM ET / Statue of Alexander the Great in the northern Greek city of Salonica seen here November 2004. Mainstream Greek audiences and film critics have welcomed Oliver Stone's film 'Alexander', relieved that it did not depict the nation's most revered hero as gay, blood-thirsty and non-Greek, as they feared(AFP/File)
"The film is one of the best promotion campaigns that Greece could ever have," state television NET said Saturday, one day after the three-hour epic had a massive release in some 80 theatres across the country.
"The movie is verbose, but it accurately deals with historical facts," conservative daily Kathimerini said.
"The few innuendos there were about Alexander's alleged bisexuality were almost imperceptible," a viewer told NET.
A lawyer's group that had initiatied legal action to censor the film dropped their case after watching a movie preview on Thursday.
History is a key ingredient of modern Greeks' national identity. Same-sex relations are stigmatized in the country and average Greeks reject notions that homosexuality was common among their ancestors.
Greeks also feared the film could provide ammunition to their northern neighbour Macedonia, much of whose Slav and Albanian population claim Alexander as part of their own national heritage.
Greece refuses to recognize the former Yugoslav republic as "Macedonia" for fear that the name implies territorial claims on the adjacent, same-name northern Greek province, Alexander's birthplace in 4th century BC.
"Our fear lest Alexander be depicted as different to the myth we have forged, betrays our own sense of insecurity," said Saturday in a comment English-speaking daily Kathimerini.
_________
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Reviews - AP
Macedonian Relics Depict 'Real' Alexander
Thu Dec 9, 4:33 PM ET Reviews - AP
By DAVID MINTHORN, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Don't expect titillating revelations about Alexander the Great from a collection of ancient relics showing life and times in his Macedonian kingdom.
Comparisons are inevitable with the new Hollywood film about Alexander, with its hints of bisexuality, but this show is all about the "real" Alexander, the historical personage from scholarly research and archaeological digs, the Greek organizers say.
"Alexander the Great: Treasures From an Epic Era of Hellenism," opening Friday at the Onassis Cultural Center, presents some 200 artifacts gathered from museums in Greece, Italy, France and the United States. The one-time exhibit lasts through April 16 and admission is free.
Alexander, 356-323 B.C., is depicted as an epic hero, shrewd self-publicist and bearer of Hellenic civilization. The emphasis is on his dynamic personality, mastery of warfare, bravery in battle and Grecian convictions that motivated his conquests before his death in Babylon at age 33.
"I have nothing against a film telling a story about Alexander's life," said curator Dimitrios Pandermalis of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. "It's the way the details are presented, the context."
Regarding male friendships and nudity on the training fields of ancient Greece, Pandermalis said, "They had a different attitude about such things."
Ancient Greece was a perpetual battlefield, and Alexander was able to perfect the arts of fighting. "Warfare was seen as the supreme good, the utmost virtue, through which every brave citizen willingly honored his country with his life and in return was rewarded with the highest honors for his sacrifice," the catalog notes.
The artifacts include images of Alexander in marble heads, bronze statuettes, medallions and ancient coins. Sections are devoted to the role of symposia, or wine-fueled social gatherings, and the influential role of women in ancient Macedonia, as shown by exquisitely crafted jewelry worn by aristocrats.
It includes the first public showing of the astonishing gold ornaments from the burial costume of a queen buried around 500 B.C. in Aigai, Macedonia, artifacts painstakingly excavated over a decade by archaeologist Angeliki Kottaridi.
Of the Alexander relics, the most famous is a marble portrait head, dating from 340-330 B.C., believed to be the work of sculptor Leohares, unearthed near the Erectheion on the Acropolis in Athens. Once part of a full-length statue, the life-size head, marred only by chipped nose, depicts the youthful king with full mane of thick hair and deep-set eyes emphasizing his intense expression. Traces of coloring on the head suggest his hair was depicted in the natural blond color.
"These characteristics combined to emphasize the leonine appearance of Alexander, frequently referred to in ancient texts," the catalog notes.
Another marble head of Alexander, in similar pose but slightly more eroded, dates from the third century B.C. It was found near Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia and Alexander's birthplace. A bronze statuette depicts Alexander on his famed horse, Bucephalus, delivering a blow with a sword. Found near ancient Herculaneum, it is believed to be a first century B.C. copy of a work by Lysippos, reputedly Alexander's favorite artist.
Alexander was the first leader to immortalize himself on coins, setting a precedent for rulers who followed him. Before, the faces of coins were reserved for gods. Some 30 gold and silver coins and medallions are shown.
The show explains why Alexander's war machine was so efficient. The catalog notes that men began an exercise and practice warfare regimen at a young age, and trained and hunted every day.
Weapons include iron swords and javelin points, bronze greaves or leg armor and a shield, lead sling shells, and an iron sarissa, "the terrible Macedonian pike whose invention had a decisive effect on the art of warfare" when wielded by the closed ranks of Alexander's phalanx formations.
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Posted on Sat, Jan. 01, 2005
Alexander the Invisible
Something is rotten in Macedonia, and it's Oliver Stone's blood-on-the-toga epic, Alexander.
Film industry analysts are projecting that the $200 million cinematic elephant, starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer, will disappear from the few theaters still showing it by the weekend, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The film has grossed less than $34 million as it heads into its sixth and almost certainly final week of release.
For Warner Bros., it's the biggest bomb the studio has absorbed since Kevin Costner's The Postman took in only $17 million in 1997.
The good news: Alexander should be out on DVD right around Valentine's Day.
Stafanel Registered User
Posts: 12
(2/28/05 10:15 am) Reply
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Of course although many historical personalities have been declared (with proves or not) to be homosexuals, the question is why did the producers choose to portrate Alexander the Great as gay, altough there aren`t enough proves to support that. Because of the publicity or someones personal ideas or frustations? This deserves a new topic.
But I think this topic should be about weather modern greeks have the right to argue about Alexander, more than other nations. After all it is not yet proven Alexander was greek and no mather what he was, Alexander is a part of world heritage, so the people who produced the movie have the same rights as modern greeks. Of course the question of why he was portrayed as gay still remain.
Unfortunately In my opinion this topic have proven to be an ocazion to do some "helenistic" propaganda, instead of a forum
Please don`t take it as an insult or attack. I trully hope you will post my entire reply, because I think it`s entirely refered to the topic. Everybody has the right to his opinion.
Grkraver Registered User
Posts: 1
(4/25/05 11:43 pm) Reply
Re: Alex not bi
[quote]Actually Plato's "Symposium" and some other writings from others at the time talk about gay parties (partouzes). I saw a documentary on homosexualism of ancient greece on History Channel and i saw many vaze drawings of men having sex, sometimes an old mentor with a young student.[/quote]
Ya i saw that show on histroy channel aswell. Homosexuality was not all uncommon in greece. Both Men and women. There was a whole island for lesbians. Lesbos right. Thats were the name Lesbian comes from.
So what if Alexander was Bi, it does not take away the fact that he was a great man, and did so much in such a short time. Personaly i look up to Alexander.
When Ceaser was the age that Alexander died he said "At the my Age i did not conquer as much as Alexander did when he died"
I think everyone should buy the True Story of Alexander the Great from the History channel. I did, i learned so much that i did not know.
Grkraver Registered User
Posts: 2
(4/25/05 11:48 pm) Reply
Re: Alex not bi
Quote:He is not greek first of all.
Yes he is half. His mother was Greek. His father got married again to a Macedonian and had a son and Alex's half brother would take the throne because he was full Macedonian. Philp was killed and Olympia had Alex's half brother killed so Alex would be King.
Re: Alex not bi
You must understand how is the things in Greece. Greece is now a typical christian country with alot of Turkish ifluence. Take the view of christianity for homosexuality and add it to the turkish "man with balls" attitude and you have the modern view of homosexuality. Consider the mania that we have for our history and here it is the explotion. No matter what the ancient wrote and the images of man to man sex that have been unearthed the view will remain the same.
Buddham Registered User
Posts: 1
(5/27/05 3:23 pm) Reply
Calling alexander gay is blasphemy
Here's a post I made on another site:
Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.
Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.
There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.
No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.
Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.
This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.
The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.
The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.
The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.
The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as @#%$ or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.
QUOTE: "Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay."
"I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests."
It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.
In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:
"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go @#%$ each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."
Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
Re: Outraged Greeks say Alexander not bisexual!!!!!!
, 12-17
attitude and you have the modern view of homosexuality. Consider the mania that we have for our history and here it is the explotion. No matter what the ancient wrote and the images of man to man sex that have been unearthed the view will remain the same.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies